Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 216.119.133.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: <011201ccfaf5$8e646f20$ab2d4d60$@acm.org>
	<CAP-ksog1tHDk6kTYUMPmLBfGeUGgQmTqgkagb8pZXfiE+TJECQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<012b01ccfafd$37c37cd0$a74a7670$@acm.org>
	<CAP-ksoh9rSLwuhNUZdVNAajv9y22vBeOBbKBi3LLattxtEXXFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<jj373p$abn$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAP-ksojybwsk09bOBWp1iqT6yXqhHdirVk4t-wM3M6tK1o2fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<jj3b09$99g$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAP-ksojRj2VhK8ysTGtNXG717bH7OA6H86xr=GQfY91kHX+Kaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<jj3dth$vtq$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAP-ksogzkiZhfC-L0Z073s8rmzyeEH0LfE0dSzWk=t7rdaz_jQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<004d01ccfb24$34cebc20$9e6c3460$@acm.org>
 <CAP-ksohr3gXgi6Kr6C-tZbL=H05PVfcL8g3=74gH1DyUd_f8tA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksohr3gXgi6Kr6C-tZbL=H05PVfcL8g3=74gH1DyUd_f8tA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time
 to test)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:55:51 -0800
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <004201ccfb33$e220b540$a6621fc0$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: 
 AQIzo9wN1mL+KAb9vLkt26cwu/vfbwE8k4VdAYc72U4CTCu3RgJVvY0jANNWwWwCErTavwLihgRMAWEgptwBTwDiOAIqJI5AAg7WGkOU7l55UA==
Content-Language: en-us

I emphasized that my practice is a personal one and I did not presume =
that it was shared by this project.

On the other hand, I am not so willing to anoint the Apache OpenOffice =
project as being  "this project for many years, where point releases do =
overlay prior releases."  Whether that was wise or not, I claim it is =
unwise of us for releases of Apache OpenOffice.

I'm also amazed that anyone here would justify anything by saying we're =
no worse than Microsoft, in effect, with the arguably hyperbolic claim =
that "Microsoft breaks their plugins with every release and requires =
reinstall."

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]=20
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 15:08
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It =
is time to test)

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> I recall the discussion about the BerkeleyDB.  However, the dots with =
respect to the current state and consequences for users were not =
connected for me until I saw J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt's reply today =
concerning the experience of Larry Gusaas.
>
> My creation of this derivative thread was immediate.  It was inspired =
by situation being made so clear.
>
> I don't recall these consequences being so evident until the testing =
of the "system integration" install versions began last week.  As a =
matter of my *personal* policy, I would never release in a way that =
automatically removed previous versions, especially for a release under =
a reconstituted project.  But that's a matter of personal principles.
>

Your "personal policy" goes against the constant practice of this
project for many many years, where point releases do overlay prior
releases.

> I do not have the experience and skills to make such changes to the =
Apache OpenOffice code base.  I do have the means to detect and =
demonstrate defects and make Bugzilla reports.  I can also recommend =
that the advice of RGB ES and Eric b be drawn upon. And I agree with =
Larry and Jean that this is a significant policy issue.
>

Please do.  I'd love to see the BZ issues.  This would make the
question concrete rather than the rampant speculation I've otherwise
read today.

> Perhaps this issue could have been surfaced and considered before now. =
 It doesn't matter.  It is clearly before us at this moment.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 14:39
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It =
is time to test)
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll put it to you quickly simple.  If you have been paying =
attention
>>> you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues.
>>
>>
>> I have been paying attention. Have you?
>> In the thread "Calling all volunteers: It is time to test" you wrote
>>
>>   "We could use help verifying the install in all real-world =
scenarios, on
>> clean OS installs,
>>   as upgrades to previous versions of OOo."  and
>>   "Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org =
telling us
>> what platform and
>>
>>   scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to
>> LibreOffice, etc.)."
>>
>> I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the
>> extensions in my user profile.
>>
>> Dennis started this thread "[EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling =
all
>> volunteers: It is time to test)" to discuss if  releases of AOO =
should
>> overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions.
>>
>> Does this not require discussion?
>>
>
> This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4
> plan.  We discussed it extensively in early December.  Certainly if
> you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new
> code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it.  But if you are
> just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the
> list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first.  Search
> for "berkeleydb".
>
> [ ... ]
>